The Supreme Court discharged the contempt notice issued to Rajesh Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue and Forest Department), Maharashtra government, taking exception to certain statements in an affidavit filed by him which suggested that the Court was not following the law.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was of the view that guilt could not be fastened on the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue and Forest Department) alone. Accordingly, the contempt notice was discharged.
Rajesh Kumar, a 1988 batch IAS officer, is the son-in-law of former BJP MP of Rajasthan Jas Kaur Meena.
The order was dictated as follows:
“On a specific query, learned counsel appearing for the state states that there were various persons involved in finalizing the affidavit. We therefore find that the noticee cannot be held singly guilty for making the averments. We therefore accept the apology and discharge the notice issued to Shri Rajesh Kumar.”
The bench also conveyed its apology to the concerned Additional Chief Secretary and Collector, indicating that if it was aware of other persons' partaking in finalisation of the affidavit, the previous order would not have been passed.
The court in its order dated August 29, 2024 had directed additional chief secretary to present before the court personally in the next hearing. Following that Rajesh Kumar travelled from Mumbai to Delhi for the personal appearance.
Justice Gavai said to Maharashtra's counsel, “Had you told us that you also had some share in that, we couldn't have called the officer all the way from Mumbai”.
“We don't have any pleasure in calling the officers. As a matter of fact, I have deprecated the practice of High Courts in calling the officers to the Court”, added the judge.
What was objectionable in the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar?
Rajesh Kumar had filed an affidavit in a case where the state was directed to compensate a landowner in Pune for illegally encroaching upon his land and allotting him an alternative plot on forest land.
Kumar, in his affidavit, said that the state was willing to compensate the landowner a sum of ₹48.65 crore and in the alternate was willing to provide land in Pune measuring over 24 acres. This offer was better than the earlier proposal by the state on August 14 to provide monetary compensation of over ₹37 crore to the affected person.
“The applicant as well as the court may not approve the fresh calculation made by the Collector, Pune but it is the bounden duty of the state to follow the provisions of law and to arrive at a proper calculation,” the affidavit added.
How the Court reacted?
Finding this submission not in good taste, the bench, also comprising justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan said, “The inference that could be drawn is that this court and the applicant (landowner) does not follow the provisions of law. He is an additional chief secretary. What sort of an officer is he? The calculation, to say the least, is based on whimsical calculation.”
The BuckStopper, run by a group of seasoned journalists, holds the powerful accountable. The buck stops with them, as they cannot shrug off their official responsibilities.
